STANDING ON PRINCIPLES
Re: Brett Joshpe’s The Goldwater Standard:
Are you kidding? Is someone calling himself “CC Goldwater” perpetrating a fraud of some kind?
Obama? Never! Not if you’ve ever read Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of A Conservative.” Not if you’ve followed anything he’s ever said, his principles. His PRINCIPLES!
But, there again, doubt if he’d’ve been much encouraged by John McCain’s Mickey-mouse attempt at doing a Bob Dole campaign either.
No, chances are, Barry Goldwater (who, we must recall, was largely responsible for integrating the Phoenix School system as well as the Arizona Air National Guard, and almost single-handedly!) would have probably chosen to write in someone like John Bolton.
When Barry Goldwater died in 1997, I wrote an article for the Fort Wayne, Indiana, News-Sentinel I entitled “The Conservative Who Never Was.” Most of the article was published under another title. Some of the items I mentioned in the original article and others I found out later are as follows. 1) After Ronald Reagan’s successful 1964 speech, Goldwater claimed the speech had been originally written for him and said he let Reagan do it for him on the famous telecast as a favor. 2) Goldwater endorsed fellow RINO Richard Nixon instead of Reagan in 1968 for the nomination. 3) He endorsed Nixon again in 1972 rather than support conservative Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio. 4) He endorsed fellow RINO Gerald Ford in 1976 rather than Reagan. 5) Goldwater arranged for an abortion for his daughter in 1957. 6) He stabbed constitutionalists Arizona Governor Evan Mecham in the back by supporting the false impeachment charges against him because he saw Mecham as a danger to Goldwater’s own political power in the state. It helped to allow Rose Mofford, a liberal Democrat, to become governor and raise taxes an additional $512 for every man, woman, and child in Arizona. 7) In 1996, he endorsed President Bill Clinton, leftist Democrat for president. Then he withdrew the endorsement, saying he was only kidding and endorsed Robert Dole. It was the first endorsement that worked. Clinton won the state for the Democrats for the first time since 1948.
At one meeting of the Young College Republicans at my school (Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky, and, at 49 and an adult student, I’m the oldest member.) I said that John McCain was a RINO and more donkey than elephant. With a slow, shocked voice, our faculty advisor asked me if I considered Barry Goldwater to be a donkey. I said immediately, “Yes. The back half.”
The question is who would Goldwater support? The answer is all you have to do is read the above seven points and you will know it’s the one running for president with the “D” by his name.
— Michael Skaggs
ABOVE THE LAW
Re: Mark Hyman’s Premature Presidency:
Unless I am mistaken, laws do not apply to Democrats when they prohibit or inhibit a policy decision any democrat elected or otherwise wishes to carry out.
Several instances come to mind. Democrats found a constitutional right to murder babies. Nowhere is it written but we are assured it is in the Constitution. Then there is the matter of written rights in the second amendment. Democrats have battled against our freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. If Mr. Obama is elected both will be seriously abrogated.
But the most egregious example of flouting and disrespecting the law can be found in an interview Mr. Obama did with Chicago public radio in 2001. In that interview Mr. Obama chastised the Warren court for not going beyond the constraints of the Constitution to redistribute wealth, power and one suspects land, to Black Americans. “Beyond the constraints of the Constitution”… How casually that rolled of his lips. I guess Mr. Obama feels the Constitution applies only when it furthers his wishes and not when it doesn’t.
I am so foolish! It was my belief that the Constitution was written to limit the power of tyrants who might take over this nation. Imagine how unsophisticated that is for an education. I guess Mr. Obama just loved the late Justice Douglass who when he was soaring off on a flight of fancy to rewrite a portion of our Constitution that didn’t particularly suit his personal needs usually began with words like theses: “It is manifestly obvious to men of good spirit and cannot reasonably be debated by men of honor and goodwill…”
The Everly Brothers said it best: Bye Bye Happiness, I think I’m gonna die…
— Jay Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina
KIND WORDS FOR OLE JOE
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s Biden and the Tale of Aldrich Ames:
Joe Biden is joke, a fool, a blowhard, an egotist, a liar and a phony. He is the personification of all that is wrong with the US Senate; overbearing, arrogant, bigheaded and just plain stupid. Just because he is a member of the elite congressional club, he thinks he can say anything at anytime and it should be taken as fact
Joe’s the guy at the pool party that can’t talk to you because if he exhales, the taut stomach will flop over the belt of his swimsuit. He’s the guy at the cocktail party people avoid so they don’t have to hear the same of BS. He’s the guy that really believes hair grows naturally from sod plugs. He’s the guy who really thinks that people are smiling with him instead of at him. He’s the guy that thinks a smooth forehead means a smooth brain is behind it. And he’s the guy that spells JOBS with three letters.
Slow Joe believes he can get away with anything and usually does because the media simply shrugs it off with—Oh That’s Just Joe. And that is dangerous. People worry about Sarah Palin being one heartbeat away, well I’m more worried about a man who has been wrong for 35 years being one heartbeat away.
It is plain to see that Obama didn’t pick Joe for his foreign relations expertise, since he doesn’t have any, but for Joe’s lock step agreement with O’s own foreign policy. A policy of appeasement, a lawyers approach to fighting terrorism that assumes they are innocent until proven guilty and that President Bush made them do it, and following the Carter and Clinton unilateral arms reduction position.
Why didn’t any of the media giants ask Joe if he knew what Obama’s foreign policy was? I guess they were more interested in Sarah’s shoe size.
— Tom Bullock
West Covina, California
Re: Grace-Marie Turner’s Jagged Little Pills:
I was wondering what happened to this “drug importation” issue. It was all over the place a couple of years ago — then just vanished from the media. But nothing was settled…
I hadn’t even seen it come up in campaign speeches this year — I haven’t seen all of them, but I see enough. I guess it just wasn’t “important” the way it was two years ago…
— Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida
MESSAGE TO MITT FANS: GET OFF OUR BANDWAGON
Re: The Prowler’s Post-Defeat Planners:
Could someone please tell Romney and any of his followers hiding in the McCain/Palin campaign that we don’t need him, don’t want him and wish he would leave the Republican base alone? Romney “in charge on November 5th?” Tell ya what, this almost lifelong conservative will have nothing to do with the Republican Party if ANYONE but Sarah Palin is running it after November 4th. Of course I am assuming that McCain has already blown the election because he thinks he’s too good to talk about Rev. Wright. Hey, John, the Democrats don’t have any problems calling names whether they are true or not.
— Andy Grego
TAKE A TEST DRIVE
Re: Eric Peter’s The Camaro’s Last Ride:
Eric Peters has proven himself to be a biased writer who is completely clueless about the things he writes about. His blind judgement of the new Camaro is appalling on many levels that it borders on offensive. He failed to accurately compare the the car to any of its contemporaries, disregarding the facts about the vehicles he mentioned in the article.
I understand that your publication does not cater to fans of the automotive realm per se, but I would hope that your editors would at least try to portray something as monumental as the reintroduction of an American automotive icon with journalistic truth and integrity.
I will not go into details in this email regarding why the Camaro is considerably better than the Mustang, because I already did that in my response to the article (my name is Jeff). However, it is painfully obvious to anyone who reads this article that it is full of blatant lies and inaccuracies.
The last thing that I want is for people to read this article and take it to heart, considering it is terribly inaccurate. I can only recommend that it be taken down to prevent people from possibly being misled by the false information in the article.
— Jeff Steeves
EAST VS. WEST, DOOLEY VS. KOEHL
Re: Stuart Koehl’s letter (under “A Matter of Doctrine”) in Reader Mail’s Thinking Ahead:
My original letter was about the relative ignorance of the fellowship within the Christian Churches of their own doctrine and Scriptures. As I strongly suggested, this is because the present and preceding generation or two of clergy have felt practical social engagement with society’s ills was the real mission of religious instruction.
Mr. Koehl picks up a tangent and addresses the old “filioque” dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches. Mr. Koehl believes there has been a substantial acquiescence by Rome to the Orthodox Church’s centuries old rejection of “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” in favor of “”the Lord and Giver of Light, who proceeds from the Father” when speaking of the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed.
Being a Lutheran and having strained to understand the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” (1999) between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches which had been strongly influenced by the Cardinal Ratzinger and then studying several other of his writings, we can understand Pope Benedict’s thoughts on ecumenical agreements are far more nuanced than one would think. It certainly isn’t what we are used to.
The key is Ratzinger’s concept of “substantial equivalence” or, put another way, “legitimate complementarily”. In short, employing a Biblical paradigm, there is but one saving Gospel in the New Testament, but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do not confess the Gospel identically. Yet each all these “confessions” still share essential compatibility. By extension, a “differentiated consensus” in doctrine may be achieved by different church bodies without any unilateral insistence on identical language. Thus the Orthodox and Roman formulations are to be regarded as diverse but legitimate expressions of the same confessed mystery of the Holy Trinity. Ecumenical fellowship and the full and visible unity of the entire Christian Church may be achieved by abstaining from a rigid insistence that the same “language” or formulations must be used to confess and proclaim the same divine mystery.
Personally, I am not convinced this guiding concept of “substantial equivalence” actually works here on the ground; but it is clear Pope Benedict believes it does. The Pope has confessed the Nicene Creed minus the “filioque” along side the Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I in a special Mass at the Vatican; but I wouldn’t count on the Western Church actually dropping the “filioque” anytime soon.
— Mike Dooley
DOCTOR’S ORDERS: LESS ROUSH “VENTING”
Re: Mike Roush’s letter (under “But What About the Present?”) in Reader Mail’s Thinking Ahead:
Mike Roush is clearly off his nut. Perhaps his shrink thinks his uncontrollable venting is healthy therapy but think of the peace of mind the rest of us would enjoy if the friendly attendants in the white coats would tighten the straps on his straitjacket so he could no longer manipulate a keyboard — Or the facts.
— Craig Marshall
Lake in the Hills, Illinois
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.